I also don't think this construed hate speech in the first place either. Black people have some pretty good reasons to say freck white people to boot. Probably not the wisest course of action but sometimes best to rage then resort to violence.

I made the mistake of doing a Google image search for 'dean hutton art.' I wish I hadn't - some things cannot be unseen. The art work in question is in any event so dreary a piece of non-art that I can't imagine why anyone would waste any time on it.

I notice that apparently, the exact same art work but with the word 'black' substituted for 'white' would not be okay. Because of white power and privilege and so on. So speech isn't as free as we think, and works of art are not necessarily exempted.

I also wonder what exactly the thing with white privilege is. What exactly do they mean? Can they give some examples? Because then we can perhaps do something about it. Otherwise it's just a vague notion.

Perhaps they just mean the fact that whites are on average still way richer than blacks. That is true, but it follows directly from government policies to curtail economic growth. It's not some fucking conspiracy by white people (or at least, if it is, I have never been invited to any of the meetings).

I notice that apparently, the exact same art work but with the word 'black' substituted for 'white' would not be okay.

Yes, this is rubbish. The statement hinges on the idea that due to the history of this country, artistic criticism is acceptable one way, but not the other. BUT it neglects to take into account that there is no exact way of interpreting art. Consider, for instance, what will happen if the Dean Hutton piece is considered ironic. (And I think it should be, because of it's repetitive wording (cf. politicians criticising whites directly or indirectly day after day after day). Then the work is not the fashionable jab at white privilege as most would assume, but a parody of whites being criticised. Then what? Is it now disqualified?

I also wonder what exactly the thing with white privilege is. What exactly do they mean? Can they give some examples? Because then we can perhaps do something about it. Otherwise it's just a vague notion.

"Privilege" has become just another blanket theorem that can be applied to anything to shut you up from saying something someone else doesn't like. It's just a generic way of using *insert privilege here* as a reason to discount any argument whether it's related to your so-called privilege or not. Users of it take pride in "shutting down" opponents like this and personally, it makes me sick. Holders of privilege could include anyone that is: male, heterosexual, white, employed, "cisgender", wealthy, not abjectly poor, medium build, ... I'm sure the list goes on. Of course proponents of this particular slur have to somehow explain away the fact that this means pretty much anyone could be "privileged" based on pretty much any attribute they possess, so they created "intersectionality": One's oppression and/or privilege is a metric defined by how many of these multitudes of dimensions of privilege overlap. The more overlap, the more privilege, or on the flipside: oppression. Essentially it's a system for ranking people based on their attributes designed by people who claim to be against ranking people on their attributes. It's braindead, has no room for individuality within groups, and in most cases I've seen it used: Entirely besides the bloody point.

Example:BM: Hey why did you do that thing you did? You just cost a lot of people a lot of money...SJW: I don't need to sit here and be judged by a wealthy privileged cisgender white male!

The argument that it is not hate speech because "Fuck White People" is meant to be thought-provoking and invite introspection only works if the word white can be replaced with any color. The artist assumes that being white is automatically something to be introspective about. Is it really? If everyone is as utterly non-racist as we declare we are, then being white should not automatically cause pause. That judge better hurry home, look in a mirror and ask himself that question. Our national pass time is not soccer, rugby or shopping. It is being holier than thou.

Therefore, the same argument holds for "Fuck Indian People" or "Fuck Black People" - in countries where "Fuck White People" is regarded as art, "fucking" people of all colors is art and not hate speech.

In any case, the 'art' (I use the term lightl... with hesitation) could only be regarded as 'art' in a country where the color divide is highly visible to begin with.

The more I think about this, the more I think that Rigil has got a point with the "maybe ironic" interpretation. Now I don't feel quite so done in anymore and pass me another piece of apple pie, please.